https://sfba.social/@drahardja/117344931893000589
the other day a tanky said a sentence constructed like that to me too, while literally arguing for me to join his authoritarian group
Im saving this in high hopes that I will remember it when I could send it to somebody, butt (&titties): I have observed that older posts seize to exist after some time on lemmy (I’m saving it to my device)
I see way too much of this on the internet, here on Lemmy included. Thanks for posting this. I have this thought a lot but haven’t see this good of a way to put it before.
Its state sponsored propaganda using companies as proxies to bypass those pesky human rights laws and is vastly on the Republican side but you do have aipac dems and similar issues in other first world countries.
The rise of right wing extremist politicians and the world also going to shit is no coincidence.
They’ll also tell you things such as “don’t trust the government” while also being the party in control. It should be obvious to anyone who isn’t a cultist.
It should be obvious to anyone who isn’t a cultist.
I love the ‘no true scot’ part here.
Nice argument
Actually it’s a logical fallacy. As in your previous comment makes no sense at all so it doesn’t need to be argued against. Just dismissed as the drivel that it is.
So you’re a maga/republican cultist? Or just support them? Seems like you’re just deflecting from the original point I was making since you have no argument with substance🤷♂️
Because people are fucking stupid, i deal with this shit at work everyday nothing to do with global politics or whatever. Sometimes our vendors fuck things up for us, so therefore there’s no point in us getting more organized at work – literally how my supervisors think.
It’s such a lazy answer and we see it everywhere. Check any discussion on veganism and you’ll spot it.
That’s exactly what I thought when I read this. We have multiple antivegan accounts on my instance that spout this crap and troll others. If they get banned, they come crying back instead of realizing how unwelcome they are. What a waste of time to spend it this way instead of actually helping people. You can’t talk about veganism on here without the same type of asshole coming out of the woodworks.
it’s one thing to do something ineffective, but be optimistic. it’s another to waste others time and morally grandstand if they won’t do ineffective things with you
Problem is in this case it’s effective
Would be even worse if we all ate animals:
I’m sorry you ran into assholes.
Edit: yeah you can tag this one as an antivegan debate pervert and move on.
I’m not antivegan
I think you’re anti-brain.
I went with “anti-vegan troll moron”
In this paper, we link a validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to estimates from a review of 570 life-cycle assessments3 (LCAs)
lca studies are disparately methodized, and cannot be combined. this is junk science
this is a counterfactual and cannot be proven
I.e. eating less meat does not affect animal welfare, zoonosis and land use change?
Are you an imbecile or a troll?
calling me names won’t change the facts
Yeah. We can call you names, and it won’t change the fact that eating less meat does affect animal welfare, zoonosis and land use change.
Or do you have some actual argument to make?
meat production continues to rise, and there is no reason to believe it could rise any faster. systemic change needs to happen.
The growth of total meat production is not indicative of the change in harm done by developed countries. It can only be combated by increasing poverty, decreasing population or imposing laws onto developing countries. Most people would be unwilling to impose that.
Quoting rising meat consumption as an example of how vegans are wrong is… Non factual. Naming those that do consume animal (products) in smaller amounts just as bad as those habitual carcass consumption clowns isn’t conducive to the goal of reducing meat consumption either.
vegans aren’t wrong to be vegan. but it would be wrong to say being vegan causes systemic change. which I thought was the point I made to begin with, and to an extent, the point of this post
Where “the facts” is just a baseless claim that since things look bad, they couldn’t be worse, therefore vegans have never made any impact whatsoever. 🤮
counterfactuals can’t be proven. that’s the only fact that matters when the actually baseless claim that it would be worse without a few people buying beans is raised.
Troll, it appears. But. Maybe both.
moral envy:
feeling of envy and resentment directed at another person, not because the person is wealthy, or gifted or lucky but because his or her behaviour is seen as upholding a higher moral standard than the envier’s own
for all the good tankies might do in a moment at the end they just create new issues, which if they are successful will be quite bad again. so not worth it since it’s completely unnecessary
There’s a good chance that anyone making this argument doesn’t see it as a problem in the first place.
That’s correct. Dismissal of the effort and disgust for the goal seem to go hand-in-hand.
Digital privacy? They’ve got you anyway AND I don’t care about privacy Environmentalism? Nothing is 100% green anyway AND I don’t care about the environment
Lots of examples like that.
They want to beat down both your goal and effort, because admitting even one of those being reasonable threatens their worldview.
Also there is crossover. Even if you managed 100% green, maybe some engineer who worked on it accidentally hit some Palestinian with their car, so now the entire project is just a secret genocide.
Yes, but this message gives them the chance to expand their view. The chance.
A monkey is gonna monk. No matter what you tellem.
It’s a demoralization propaganda tactic to effectively blunt any issue. People have internalized the idea that they can do nothing on an individual level. Like habits that form out of persistent actions, people have been demoralized into giving up completely. It’s some sort of ego trap. Where the presumption is that an individual is supposed Superman saving the world, but of course they aren’t. Nobody is. So why bother at all. That’s not the point. It’s about the the population as a whole determining the norm. Everyone is convinced it’s pointless and hopeless. That sets the tone. The issue is dead in the water. Any issue can be killed this way. It’s extremely effective. People fall for it every time.
That’s where climate change is right now. That’s where wealth inequality is right now. People have listened to social media. They’ve internalized the quote repetitions. The demoralization mantras they saw on social media.
Your adversaries can handle words on social media. It’s meaningless to them. It has no effect on their daily lifestyle or their bank accounts. Throwing words into the cloud. Somebody else’s computer. Those servers are owned by your very adversaries. You’re throwing your comments into a meaningless suggestion box. In all likelihood the quote repetitions were seeded by them.
Everyone is convinced that “the rich” consist of a few billionaires named Musk, Bezos, or Zuckerberg. This blinds people from seeing local issues. Like crony politicians or localized inequality issues. Ones where they actually have more of a voice. One where they can actually effect change.
There’s no more blatant manifestation than when reddit (happens on lemmy too) bleeds their hearts over those posts about some rich asshole. Those carbon copy posts about how hard it is to be making techbro level money while “struggling” to live in the most wealthy cities in the world. Who gives a shit. Why does everyone have sympathy for those rich people at all. Everyone crazy? These people are part of the problem. They are the rich too. They are the source of issues that affect you locally. The guillotines are for them as much as Musk, Bezos or Zuckerberg. They’re out of touch rich people who have dragged you all into their reality where they’re victims too. How convenient for them to have a few billionaire scapegoats that are untouchable. Whereas the average working class person can actually effect change on a local level.
People have given up on climate change because they’re convinced the one or two people must stop flying private jets then the problem will be solved. It’s quote repetitions. Fed to them from social media. “If those jerks can fly private jets, then why can’t I consume as much as I want myself. I’ll use all the plastic bags and straws that I want.” It’s not about the bags or the straws. It’s about the collective demoralization. The propaganda is so effective.
Perfect is the enemy of good (or good enough).
Or slightly less terrible
I was once explaining the upsides of UBI and someone replied “no, this would fix too many issues with capitalism, this would delay the revolution!” Like… Dude.
I always think of this post whenever I hear someone dead-set on nothing less than massive, systemic change.
True that. Do I agree modern society has gone crazy in many fundamental ways? Hell yeah. Will I reject an opportunity to do something small that will affect only a handful of lives for just a few days based solely on that? Nope
I’ve reached a point where I think if both the left and right tell you are wrong, you might just as well have arrived at the correct idea (usually, not always).
Haha I kind of see both your points, it kind of does the liberal thing of extending the umbrella of protection from exploitation while pushing exploitation farther to the sidelines. The worst case outcome is that you now have more defenders of the status quo, because they’ve got it good. Meanwhile the entire economy is still based on war and exploitation, especially of poor workers in other countries.
But then maybe if us workers here had some more breathing room (perhaps not the best choice of words…) we might also have more capacity for solidarity with those exploited workers. Who knows, but it would remedy a lot of immediate problems here anyway.
And all the trials have been very positive, so I’m inclined to give it a shot yeah.
‘Let them get a taste of how terrible those guys are, and then they’ll vote us in and our system will rise!’ is what the Weimar Republic said about the Nazis.
Never, ever assume making things worse will end up causing a few tiny problems and then everything gets better. Humans are, by and large, shockingly tolerant of rather terrible things. If you let things get worse, they will get very, very worse, and a lot of innocent people will die.
Me sitting here drinking soda with a soggy paper straw made from recycled toilet paper rolls:
Overly classy french.jpg
Yeah, but this post won’t stop everyone from saying that /s
History has taught us that reform doesn’t work. It makes the current mode of production, something clearly unfair, slightly more palatable. This is not a solution. Revolution is the only method of improving society as a whole in meaningful ways.
I encourage anyone curious about these topics that are unsatisfied with the concept of reform to study Marxism.
History has shown that reform doesn’t work as a method for establishing socialism. I agree that establishing socialism would solve most of the world’s problems and we should spend the bulk of our political energy trying to make revolution, but that doesn’t mean that trying to fix one little issue within capitalism or taking an hour to vote for an imperfect candidate doesn’t have a meaningful impact.
Marxists should be simultaneously working to achieve revolution and improve life for their communities in the immediate term. The fun thing is that often the first directly leads to the second.
Reforms are quite easy to roll back.
I have been told this my whole life, how our silly little actions didn’t mean anything because they were too small or fringe or whatever.
The difference is I can look back across the decades and see a lot of people who I have helped, and who have helped me in turn, things have been directly made better as a result (well, at least some of the time). Meanwhile, their “more realistic” approach centred on voting has seen periods of glacial progress and rapid retreat, leaving them further back than ever before in my lifetime.
There’s like two kinds of proposals, and whichever kind you make you get criticized. You make a big proposal, people say “Well yeah but how does that work on the ground?” You make an on-the-ground proposal, and people say “Well how does that scale to the whole thing?” Alright fine, then let’s just die!
Perfection being the enemy of good (enough).
Yeah I’ve had this kind of discussions with right wing folk. We were discussing socialist policies, which I was in favor of and they were against. They were pointing out there were people abusing current socialist policies and getting a free handout, so all of those policies should be cut to prevent the freeloaders from freeloading. I argued that any kind of policy, no matter what the policy is, is going to be abused by a small fraction of the population. It’s not possible to create something without loopholes and people exploiting them. We should try to prevent it in the design, but in the end we should accept that’s going to happen and instead focus on if the policy is also actually helping the people it was designed for.
Nothing is perfect, problems won’t be fully solved and / or new problems will be created. That isn’t failure, it’s life.
But the rich abusing policies so they get pure bail out socialism is fine. Just dont want a poor brown person to have it heavens no.
Also systems designed to prevent exploits require resources. For example checking that people getting unemployment benefits are actually unemployed is actually work. It is often cheaper to be imperfect, just because those checks are so expensive.
The easiest way to avoid freeloaders and abusers is to make services available to anyone who wants them. Then the only abuse is trying to count one person as multiple people to get an unfair amount of benefits which isn’t even possible for things like universal healthcare.
Often there’s a break even point at greater than zero auditing where the audits start costing more than the amount of fraud, but it’s surprisingly common that zero or very nearly zero auditing is actually the most efficient setup, because regular people just don’t commit fraud all that often. When dealing with corporations, on the other hand…
current capitalist approaches are being exploited RIGHT NOW to consolidate wealth and power (see: kushner buying the lakers, ellison buying warner bros and thats just los angeles alone). i’d much rather have a handful of everyman freeloaders than concentrated greed.
